Gas needed, not 'Gasland II'
The movie “Gasland Part II” was recently shown here in Pennsylvania, including a June 20 screening at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall & Museum in Pittsburgh, trying to get people riled up against fracking and natural gas production.
I think that's a shame. Every claim the original “Gasland” made has been thoroughly debunked by people who, unlike its producers and director, know what they are talking about.
I have toured a number of drilling sites where I watched drilling, fracking and natural gas production operations. Harvesting this much-needed energy resource in Pennsylvania is a clean, nonpolluting operation.
America needs abundant, low-cost natural gas for electricity and chemical production as well as for industrial, commercial and residential heating. It's a good thing for this region, not something we should oppose.
Marcellus shale drilling supports 234,000 good-paying jobs in our state. Companies producing natural gas have paid over $1.6 billion in taxes to the state since 2006. Why does the movie's director, Josh Fox, want to put these people out of work and deprive the nation of a vital resource and our state of this much-needed tax revenue?
It is wrong for someone from out of state to put all that at risk to sell a few movie tickets. I hope the theaters are empty when the lights go down for “Gasland Part II.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.